Though I haven’t posted in awhile, I am still passionate about spreading the real truth about GMOs and letting my story be known.

My blog tells the story – post by post – about how a person can go from believing that GMOs are dangerous and should be banned to realizing that there is much value and potential in transgenic technology and genetic engineering in general and that it can and will change the world – not just in the realm of food, but medicine and more.

I recently discovered a cooking teacher and food writer who has written an impressive amount on the topic of GMOs – in a short time. Julie Kelly is a bright, refreshing, relatively new voice for science – profoundly aware, never having planned to speak favorably about GMOs and yet couldn’t keep silent about the topic. Best of all, I believe she understands to perfection the potential of genetic engineering.

Having just entered the world of GMOs a year ago, she has been prolific in reporting about it. I am most impressed.

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Below is a list of some of her other articles on the topic: I have not read all of these and they may not represent how I feel about a certain topic within the realm of the broader GMO topic, but I’m sure I agree with most of what she says. I do admit that I am a frequent customer of Chipotle – for the sole reason that I love the taste of their food and I feel that it is a healthier fast food alternative than, say, a Big Mac.

Today I am reviewing a brief video that packs a punch – titled GMOs and Health Safety, presented May 9 of this year at the UCLA Women’s Health Conference. The speaker is Alan McHughen. an Oxford-educated molecular geneticist with a focus on crop improvement and sustainability.

There are four things I especially appreciate about this video.

1. It is relatively short and accessible to any non-sciency lay person (which would be humanities-major me.)

2. Dr. McHughen emphasizes that all the hullabaloo over GMOs in foods is really a moot point because by the time the much maligned ‘just-label-it’ foods hit store shelves, there isn’t anything close to an organism in them let alone a genetically modified one. So yes, all this hysteria that has large sections of the public in a snit is really much ado about nothing. He says (emphasis mine):

Genetically engineered corn, soybean, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets – they’re the ones that you’re likely to encounter (in the marketplace). But the food products that you get from those are things like corn oil, soybean oil, vegetable oil, cottonseed oil, canola oil or sugar from sugar beets – those aren’t genetically modified organisms. In fact we don’t have GMOs in any of our foods because there are no organisms in any of our food – except maybe pro-biotic yogurts and things but the organisms stay behind. In fact, even the genetically engineered plants stay behind when you process a corn plant for oil. You’re removing the DNA and the proteins. What you get at the end is corn oil which is identicle whether its squeezed out of a genetically engineered corn kernel or a non genetically engineered corn kernel. When they say 80% of our food contains GMOs, number one: NONE of our food contains GMOs or even organisms, except probiotics which are not genetically engineered as far as I know. There are no remnants of the GE process in what is called genetically engineered corn oil. It is identicle to traditional corn oil.

Folks, this is one of the big reasons the farm and food industry object to labeling, and who can blame them? The term “GMOs” is misleading as it infers some kind of ingredient, where there is none. Genetic engineering is a technology, just as is the extremely common mutation breeding, which is way worse in my opinion, but no one seems to care. I’ll eat a genetically modified product any day.

3. McHughen reminds us how many farmers worldwide willingly choose to grow the most common varieties of soy, corn and cotton crops using the Roundup Ready and Bt seeds. Farmers are NOT unwitting victims of Monsanto, as is commonly believed across the web. They are wise business people who want to make a good living like anyone else – while offering an excellent product to consumers. They make decisions based on productivity. And no one, absolutely no one is as concerned about their land as they are. They’re not going to just blindly poison it.

4. Somehow, and in a very short time, McHughen touches on many of the lesser known but wide spread benefits derived by GE technology while simultaneously dispelling myth after myth. He mentions the genetic engineering process used to create insulin, chymosin (used in the making of cheese) and the cystic fibrosis drug dornase alfa.

In closing I’ll admit that McHughen doesn’t paint an entirely rosy picture when it comes to genetic engineering. He does briefly introduce areas where actual danger could be lurking but more importantly, he underscores the absolutely crucial fact that the fear of our current food supply being somehow tainted or toxic because of GMOs is ERRONEOUS.

No disrespect is intended toward people who are fearful of GMOs, I just ask you to consult respected sources for your information. Start with GMO Answers, a website where McHughen is a contributor.

Yes, I changed my mind about GMOs

It is no secret that in spring of 2013, after focusing this blog solely on bashing biotech and calling for strict labeling laws, I stopped in my tracks, pivoted, and performed a complete one-eighty. I was one of the folks, and there are a few of us out here, who changed my mind.

Why did I change my mind? It was simple: the vast, and I mean vast majority of data do not support an anti-GMO position, and in fact do support quite the opposite.

As for labeling – well my opinion has evolved to the the point where it makes more sense that if you wish to avoid GMOs, then buy ‘organic’ or foods marked ‘GMO Free’. You are within your rights to do so. (I would also like to remind people that GMOs are not ingredients like wheat flour or corn starch. GMOs are a technology. But that’s another post…)

I now feel strongly that the concern some people have with GMOs is more of a ‘specialty problem’ – and should be handled as such. Like halal or kosher food, sugar-free, low-glycemic, allergen-free cosmetics and so on. When it is a specialized need, it is up to the consumer to seek out the type of product he or she requires, not make unreasonable demands-born-of-misinformation on the industry.

Pro-Science Position

Nowadays, I take what is commonly referred to as a ‘pro-science’ position on GMOs and frankly, everything under the sun! Being pro-science means that one operates from the framework of evidence, not belief. So, practically speaking this means that if I hear or read something like, say, vaccines cause autism, I carefully go about finding neutral, non-sensationalized information – articles, studies, etc. – that will provide evidence. The truth is usually not as exciting, not as entertaining as sensationalized headlines, and most importantly, relies solely on facts that have been well-vetted via proper, repeated scientific study.

Science constantly seeks the truth, the evidence, what is happening, what happened, and so on. Constantly. It does this via the scientific method which, to be done correctly, requires a universally accepted proper methodology. And science is wrong – a lot – in which case it promptly admits it’s wrong and sets about becoming right again. And so it goes. There is no embarrassment or backpedaling. You go with the best evidence you have at the time. Many applications of science require a constant weighing of benefit versus risk, whether real or perceived. GMOs are in this category so there is no shortage of studies! (See Genera)

This experience has so changed me that I’ve become a ‘show me the evidence’ type – no longer prone to emotional hooks like fear, heart-string tugging, sensationalism, propaganda and the like. I can’t tell you how freeing this transformation has been! I have let go of many long held beliefs that limited my thinking. (I still, however, have a very difficult time walking under a ladder, but I’m working on it).

I should also add that I am hated by anti-GMO types now. They ask me how I can sleep at night, tell me I’ve been won over by corporate henchmen, accuse me of being on Monsanto’s payroll (I wish). But truly, none of this bothers me much. I know I am on the side of evidence and I am not ruled by fear and hype.

I am not trying to offend anyone but I must be true to myself. Surely being true to oneself can be universally respected?

Q & A With Dr. Folta

I’d like to present a recent interview I did with Dr. Kevin Folta, chairman of the University of Florida’s Horticultural Sciences Department. He is launching a podcast series titled Talking Biotech and I was his first guest. He wanted to explore the topic of how and why someone changes their mind. (I could not imbed the podcast so please click on the link 🙂

Well, well, well, Mr. Bill Nye appears to be the latest GMOs-Are-Actually-Pretty-Neat-Come-Lately. Welcome to the fold, Mr. Nye. I doubt many science types are surprised that you eventually got here, even if it took you awhile.

Apparently a face-to-face encounter with Monsanto scientists was enough for the science guy to stop questioning the safety, utility and reach of GMOs. Mr Nye, I fear you will be forever accused of having partaken of Monsanto’s kool-aid, as I was after I visited a Monsanto facility in Hawaii a few years back. One person went so far as to insinuate that Monsanto paid for my whole Hawaii vacation. If only!

Glad to see rationality and reason prevail here and it’s well about time. My respect for Nye is in tact.

And – is it just wishful thinking, or is Mother Jones’s Tom Philpott disguising a bit of squirm in this article?

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

-A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops/Klümper, Qaim

Recently on twitter I was made fun of, called ridiculous, a music teacher of all things, most certainly out of her element because of my post objecting to the ‘Right to Know’ ads and their misleading fear-mongering. Here is the tweet, minus the person’s name who was behind it. Suffice it to say I believe this person means well, is educated and loves the environment.

Today, I’m ridiculously proud to be an Oregonian. We were one of the few states to stay blue at both the state and national level. (Yes, the tweeter above may be surprised to know that I am a registered democrat, passionate about the environment and women’s issues, but admittedly right-leaning when it comes to money and business. And no, I don’t get money from Monsanto or any other similar company for my posts.)

We legalized pot and as of July 1, I can have up to eight ounces on premises. Truth be known, eight ounces seems excessive but I still voted yes on that one and I will likely purchase some ganja when it becomes legal.

But the thing I’m happiest about is that we didn’t cave to the fear-mongers and vote yes on 92, the GMO labeling initiative. After watching months of ads that claimed things like “these crops have been engineered for heavy pesticide use” and “would you rather eat this (yellow corn seeds in hand) or this?” (blue, engineered corn seeds in a ziploc) – I have had enough!

It’s over and rationality prevailed.

Coincidentally, the article posted below was published on November 3, just two days before the vote was fully counted and 92 went down. I just love the irony.

More pesticides because of GMOs you say, right-to-knowers? Farmers are slaves to Monsanto you say, Right-to-Knowers? Think again. Please, please read this public access, peer-reviewed mega-study in its entirety. The authors are German, European, from a land where labeling exists, and the promise of biotechnology is held back because of irrational fears.

Just because Europe labels GMOs doesn’t make it a good idea.

For the record, I am all for labels if they educate people about the benefits and limitations of GMOs. But the agenda behind all of the Right to Know campaigns is simply to vilify them.

Julee K/Sleuth4Health

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

Wilhelm Klümper,

Matin Qaim

Published: November 03, 2014

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Abstract

Background

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, controversies about this technology continue. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for widespread public suspicion.

Objective

We carry out a meta-analysis of the agronomic and economic impacts of GM crops to consolidate the evidence.

Data Sources

Original studies for inclusion were identified through keyword searches in ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, EconLit, and AgEcon Search.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.

Synthesis Methods

Analysis of mean impacts and meta-regressions to examine factors that influence outcomes.

Results

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

Limitations

Several of the original studies did not report sample sizes and measures of variance.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

Introduction

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, public controversies about the risks and benefits continue [1]–[4]. Numerous independent science academies and regulatory bodies have reviewed the evidence about risks, concluding that commercialized GM crops are safe for human consumption and the environment [5]–[7]. There are also plenty of studies showing that GM crops cause benefits in terms of higher yields and cost savings in agricultural production [8]–[12], and welfare gains among adopting farm households [13]–[15]. However, some argue that the evidence about impacts is mixed and that studies showing large benefits may have problems with the data and methods used [16]–[18]. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for the widespread public suspicion towards this technology. We have carried out a meta-analysis that may help to consolidate the evidence.

While earlier reviews of GM crop impacts exist [19]–[22], our approach adds to the knowledge in two important ways. First, we include more recent studies into the meta-analysis. In the emerging literature on GM crop impacts, new studies are published continuously, broadening the geographical area covered, the methods used, and the type of outcome variables considered. For instance, in addition to other impacts we analyze effects of GM crop adoption on pesticide quantity, which previous meta-analyses could not because of the limited number of observations for this particular outcome variable. Second, we go beyond average impacts and use meta-regressions to explain impact heterogeneity and test for possible biases.

Our meta-analysis concentrates on the most important GM crops, including herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, maize, and cotton, as well as insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton. For these crops, a sufficiently large number of original impact studies have been published to estimate meaningful average effect sizes. We estimate mean impacts of GM crop adoption on crop yield, pesticide quantity, pesticide cost, total production cost, and farmer profit. Furthermore, we analyze several factors that may influence outcomes, such as geographic location, modified crop trait, and type of data and methods used in the original studies.

Seidler appears in a fear-monger pro-labeling commercial (below) holding a ziploc bag of blue GMO corn seeds, then holds pretty non-GMO yellow corn seeds in the palm of his hand. He says he has concerns about GMO safety and asks if you’d like to know which kind of seeds you’re eating. Then he says the companies that produce these blue seeds also once put out agent orange and said it was safe (this agent orange deal is a whole other topic that is vastly misunderstood and used to ignite fear and distrust). So, we should have labeling. But he’s really saying let’s stamp out GMOs for good. It’s soooo obvious.

Let me be clear: I wouldn’t mind a labeling initiative if it just meant that people simply want to know more about the food they are eating. I believe in labels that educate people. Read this post. We could start with the fact that GMOs aren’t ingredients. Sugar, fat, sodium, xantham gum = ingredients. GMOs = breeding process. But the Right to Know is not that, and it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Seidler’s ad should convince anyone of that. The campaign wants to rid our planet of GMOs. Seidler and Hansen (see below) – the activists behind the ads – have made that abundantly clear in many of their other media appearances.

It is widely repeated on this blog that I am not a scientist. But watching Seidler’s commercial and another Seidler video below I am APPALLED at how this so-called scientist represents transgenic technology. He uses fear, emotion, scary sounding words and histrionics to get his anti-GMO points across. Ever watch a run-of-the-mill scientist talk about GMOs? They don’t use emotion because they don’t have to. Facts, supported by data, can stand up on their own. I’ve gotten to where I have zero tolerance for emotion in a scientific presentation. It doesn’t belong there. If a speaker starts getting preachy about any sort of facts, I will immediately dismiss the facts as suspect. There is simply no place for dogmatic persuasion in science. Just the data please.

Here is another video featuring Seidler. It’s called The Truth About GMOs. Chuckle chuckle. Notice how he uses emotion to make his points.

He does a good job of explaining that GMOs, recombinant, transgenic technology – are all the same. But he fails to mention that the technology is one breeding technique among many breeding techniques,

Read this post to learn exactly how the Bt mechanism works in crops. The reality is far from how Seidler presents it in his video, with his emphasis on the words toxic and toxins. Why doesn’t he also say that organic farmers use Bt toxin topically as well?

Read this post about how a cotton farmer feels about Bt cotton and purchasing Monsanto seeds. Read about the huge decrease in insecticides realized because of these seeds. Read this series about how a cross section of farmers feel about GMOs.

Oregonians are getting their ballots in the mail. Voting is going to happen in the coming weeks. Because Oregon is such a hotbed for woo I fear this measure will pass and then the worms from the can will begin crawling around. I mean, Oregon already owns the dubious distinction of having the highest percentage of un-vaccinated school-age kids.

I’m going to make a very bold statement that will offend a lot of my left-leaning brethren but here goes: Liberals entrenched in anti-vax and anti-GMO woo are reaching peak stupid right about now and have no right to criticize conservatives who doubt the reality of climate change. You’re all equally wrong!

I will add that Michael Hansen, the consumer union guy in the ad below, who claims to be unbiased is a full-on anti-GMO activist just as Seidler is.